The RG Kar case has triggered a fresh accountability question after a report by Sangbad Pratidin said that action could be taken against West Bengal health secretary Narayan Swaroop Nigam if he was found to have ordered the demolition or renovation of a room and an adjoining toilet near the hospital’s seminar hall. The report said the assurance was given at an event held at RG Kar Hospital on Friday, October 9.
The allegation relates to the area beside the seminar hall at RG Kar Hospital, which became central to public concern after the death of a doctor in the hospital premises. According to the supplied report, the room and adjacent toilet were demolished and renovated shortly after the incident. The report attributes the allegation to a family member of the deceased and says that the question of who authorised the work remains under examination.
At the event, the report quoted the deceased’s mother, identified as Ratna Debnath, also described in the report as a Panihati MLA, as asking why the room and adjoining toilet were demolished soon after the incident and who had authorised the work. She was quoted as questioning how the health secretary could continue in office if he had been involved in giving instructions connected with the site.
The report then attributed a response to Suvendu Adhikari. According to the translation of the published account, he said the allegation was serious and that he was examining whether the then health secretary had issued any direction to demolish the location or destroy evidence. The report said he promised that Nigam would be removed immediately if the allegation was found to be true.
The account also said that responsibility for renovation work at RG Kar Hospital lay with the Public Works Department. It stated that the administration would examine whether the Health Department had issued any instruction to the Public Works Department. The report further attributed to Adhikari an assurance that action would be taken against any individual found responsible and that the state government would pursue steps connected with the case.
The institutional question raised by the report is not limited to the conduct of an individual official. It concerns how work inside a functioning public hospital is authorised, recorded and coordinated when the location may have relevance to a criminal investigation. The available material does not establish which department issued a written order, what work was carried out, when it began, or whether investigators had cleared the site before the changes were made.
The report’s account therefore leaves several factual points unresolved. It does not provide the text of any order from the Health Department or the Public Works Department. It also does not cite a court document, investigative agency record, departmental file or official notification confirming that Nigam directed the demolition or that evidence was destroyed. The allegation remains attributed to the statements reported at the event.
There is also an important verification issue in the supplied article itself. While it identifies the speaker as Suvendu Adhikari, it refers to him in one passage as the chief minister. That designation is not independently established in the supplied material and creates uncertainty about the speaker’s official position and the authority attached to the reported assurance. The exact speech, the speaker’s designation and the wording of the commitment require confirmation before the account can be treated as fully established.
For hospital administration, the matter highlights the importance of maintaining an auditable chain of responsibility for repairs, alterations and reconstruction in sensitive areas. The supplied report indicates that the state administration intends to examine whether the Health Department instructed the Public Works Department. It does not state whether that examination has formally begun, which agency will conduct it, or when its findings will be released.
The next verifiable steps are therefore the identification of the original work order, the departmental records governing the renovation, the responsible authority’s official statement and any investigative or judicial finding on the condition of the site. Until those records are available, the allegation against the health secretary and the reported promise of removal should remain treated as claims requiring confirmation rather than established findings.
